|
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
I understand that, but how can someone be in the news daily alledged to have done something and charged awaiting trial, and then have a fair trial 6 months down the line, when the media are reporting what it wants to report up until that trial? Those on the jury could easily have been swayed surely? What is the difference with naming those involved in that paedophile ring and them then going to trial 6 months down the line? I just do not see why this had a media blackout just because they are involved in more than one case, and other alleged criminals can be named prior to their trials. its not a media blackout as such, the reporting restrictions ensure a person found guilty cannot appeal his case on grounds somebody on trial alongside him was found guilty elsewhere and so he was tarred with same brush, many of the defendants were named, no matter how evil somebody is they are entitled to a fair trial, |
|
By:
many of the defendants were named,
Yes by the mainstream and 300+ journalists BEFORE TR that's where he got his info from it was in the public domain,checked the judiciaries site regarding reporting restrictions THEN filmed them. |
|
By:
yeah thats what i meant.
but you say he was highlighting these crimes, now you say it was already in public record.... he stated during his film that he knew reporting restrictions were in place, he knew from previous contempt charge that he was not allowed to film....but chose to go ahead. |
|
By:
"no matter how evil somebody is they are entitled to a fair trial"
![]() |
|
By:
----you-have-to-laugh--- • July 12, 2019 6:36 PM BST
but you say he was highlighting these crimes, now you say it was already in public record.... That's a fair point , when you put it like that , but tucking away something as serious as this where people need to carry out a search bordering on the forensic in order to find it is a clear attempt to collude in the covering up of these crimes . |
|
By:
or a known requirement of the legal system
|
|
By:
Surely it should have been removed completely . But then we have the technicality as to whether the fact it was published in the first place then it is in the public domain even though it has subsequently been deleted
![]() |
|
By:
He was given a suspended sentence for the first offence,then he did it again.
Thick or attention-seeker ? |
|
By:
To an extent , possibly both .
|
|
By:
Definitely ( 100%) both
|
|
By:
Although as said many times they had to move the goalposts claiming the judiciaries OWN RULES were wrong and add the other charges to get the conviction but apart from that......
|